W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15

From: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:46:56 GMT
Message-ID: <5770211.1013712349899.JavaMail.bwm@MCBRIDE-B-4>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
10:00:00 Fri Feb 15 2002 in America/New York

which is equivalent to
15:00:00 Fri Feb 15 2002 in Europe/London

Phone: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332
irc: irc.openprojects.net #rdfcore

1: Allocate scribe

2: Roll Call

3: Review Agenda

4: Next telecon - 10am Boston time, 22 Feb 2002

5: Review Minutes of 2002-02-01 telecon with correction


6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

ACTION: 2001-11-16#7 Pat
following email discussion of rdfms-boolean-valued-properties, prepare new statement of this resolution to bring back for approval.


ACTION: 2002-02-08#1 bwm
Update RDFcore home page to point to new 


ACTION: 2002-02-08#5 Jeremy
 post URI of description of property attributes and bagId indeterminacy problem to list.


ACTION: 2002-02-08#6 FrankM
lead the reification discussion based with goal of addressing the provenance use-case (to the extent that this can be done without adding new features)


7:  face to face meeting


8: Model Theory WD
ACTION: 2002-02-08#2  Eric  Arrange publication of model WD

9: Status of Test Cases WD
ACTION: 2001-11-30#3 Jan Grant Get access to test case areas of W3C site
ACTION: 2002-01-11#2  JanG  post summary of Test Cases WD outstanding updates to list.
ACTION: 2002-01-11#1  bwm  persue CVS access for Jan with EM

10: WG Status

11: Preparing for the f2f

rdfms-seq-representation: The ordinal property representation of containers does not support recursive processing of containers in languages such as Prolog.

Need a volunteer to prepare a proposal.

rdfms-assertion: RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an assertion.

The director has an architectural requirement that we say something about this.We need someone to draft some appropriate words.  We have two volunteers,
Graham and PatH.  Yes?

Schema Issues:  DAnbri?

12: Issue rdfms-propElt-id-with-dr

Clarify the interpretation of an ID attribute in the propertyElt
production within a Description element with a distributive 


  o the WG resolves that this issue be closed on the grounds
    that with the removal of rdf:aboutEachPrefix and rdf:aboutEach
    there are no distributive referrants and the issue is mute.


13: Issue rdf-terminologicus

The RDF community needs a precise terminology to enable it to discuss issues.(Martyn Horner) 


  o the WG resolves that this issue is addressed by the glossary in the
    primer and that this issue be closed.


14: Issue rdfms-graph

Formal description of the properties of an RDF graph.


  o the WG resolve that the model theory is a formal description
    of the properties of an RDF graph and that this issue be 


15: Issue rdf-formal-semantics
The RDF Model and Syntax Rec and RDF Schema CR do not 
provide a formal specification of the semantics of RDF.


  o   the WG resolves that the model theory defines formal
      semantics for RDF and that this issue be closed.


16: Issue rdfms-fragments


  o The WG resolves that the meaning of absolute
    URI's with fragment ID's is a matter of web architecture and
    beyond the scope of this WG and that this issue be closed.


17: Issue rdfms-literals-as-resources

Consider replacing literals with resources whose URI uses the
data: URI scheme.


  o  the WG resolve that the proposed change would be a major
     change to the RDF specification and is out of scope for
     this WG.


18: Issue rdfms-literalsubjects
Should the subjects of RDF statements be allowed to 
be literals?


  o  the WG resolves that the current syntaxes (RDF/XML, 
     n-triples, graph syntax) do not allow literals as subjects.

  o the WG notes that it is aware of no reason why literals
    should not be resources and a future WG with a less 
    restrictive charter may extend the syntaxes to allow
    literals as the subjects of statements.


19: Issue rdf-containers-otherapproaches
The design of the RDF Model collection classes exhibit various
awkward features. Might these be augmented with a 'better' design?


  o   the WG resolves this issue is out of scope for this WG
      but places the issue on the list of to be considered by a
      future WG.


20: Issue rdfms-uri-substructure

xmlns, uri+name pairs or just uris..? Clarification 


  o  the WG resolves to close this issue on the grounds that
     changing how resources are named on the web is a web
     architecture issue and beyond the scope of our charter.

  o Whereas:

(a) the RDF 1.0 spec says that property and class names
are computed from element and attribute names
by concatenating their namespace names with their local names

(b) it's useuful to be able to process RDF with
XPath and XSLT, where even though
	concat(namespace-name(qname1), local-name(qname1))
is the same as
	concat(namespace-name(qname2), local-name(qname2))
the qnames themselves may not compare equal in XPath expressions.

(c) lots of implementors have looked for advice on
how to serialize RDF, and, in particular, how to
compute a namespace name and localname from
the name of a property or a class.

the WG advises RDF schema/namespace/vocabulary designers

(d) choose namespace names that end in non-xml-name-characters
such as / # ?

and we advise implementors of RDF serializers:

(e) in order to break a URI into a namespacename and a local
name, split it at the last XML name character. If the URI
ends in a non-name-character and no other information is available
to indicate where to split the URI,  throw a "this graph
cannot be serialized in RDF 1.0" exception.

Propose action the Syntax WD editor to add to Syntax WD.

Propose action Test Cases Editor to add test cases bsed on those
suggested by Dan in:



21: Issue rdfms-boolean-valued-properties

No standard vocabulary is defined for representing boolean valued
properties. The author of this suggestion proposes the
introduction of two new properties, rdf:is and rdf:isNot. To
represent the fact that someone likes chocolate, their resource
could have the property rdf:is with a value of foo:ChocolateLover.

We have two candidate resolutions: 

   o. The WG notes that since a boolean-valued property can be
      identified with a  class, rdf:type can be used to
      represent boolean valued properties. Thus:

     <foo> <chocolateLover> <true> .

can be represented by

     <foo> <rdf:type> <ChocolateLover> .

   o. While this provides no way to express a negative (negated)
      boolean value, the addition of such an ability would extend
      RDF beyond its anticipated semantic basis, requiring
      unacceptably far-reaching changes.

   o. The WG resolves to close this issue on the grounds that the
      current facilities are adequate for all purposes that do not
      over-extend RDF.


      The WG notes that since a boolean-valued property can be
      identified with a  class, rdf:type can be used to
      represent boolean valued properties. Thus:

     <foo> <chocolateLover> <true> .
     <foo> <rdf:chocolateHater> <true> .

can be represented by

     <foo> <rdf:type> <ChocolateLover> .
     <foo> <rdf:type> <ChocolateHater> .

The WG notes that RDF(S) defines no built in mechanism for expressing that 
ChocolateLover and ChocolateHater are disjoint classes.  The WEBONT WG
are defining mechanisms for such expressions.

The WG resolves to close this issue.


22: Model Theory for Containers
Discuss PatH's proposal for the semantics of rdf:Bag.
Possibly approve and action Pat to update model theory.


23: Reification
See Frank's subAgenda 


24: Datatypes
Review status and plan.

This agenda was produced by Jema, the Jena WG assistant
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 13:47:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:55 UTC